This has indeed survived the system, and to-day the rarest thing in America is a publisher or an editor or reporter, who does eschew, from principle, all sorts of feeding of the press, and those who hang around it, from the public crib. The so-called reform of letting public printing and advertising to the lowest bidder, is but a more corrupting form of an old abuse, and still the country publishes largely, at great cost, what it ought not, and fails to provide for the promulgation of that economically, which the people need, to be free in the highest sense.

Do we not all see, that it requires only an extension and perfection of the methods already in practical operation, so as to make them more economical as well as efficient, to give this people the very mental action they need? We have governors' messages, reports of cabinet officers, et id omne genus. Why will we stick fast in these annual summaries; why not have monthly-yea, weekly-nay, why not daily statements? That they are wanted is evidenced by the daily interviews of our Presidents, Secretaries of the Treasury, &c. Must these public men for ever wear the reporter's mask? Must the public always see through such spectacles? Why not have direct open communications? Why not have bulletins open to all? Yea, we make bold to ask: Are there not matters, which all papers should be compelled to publish? Other governments, and they are of the better sort, are taking this direction. Why not we, in modes suitable to our institutions? Should not the associated press telegrams be an organization free to all on easy terms, just like the weather reports?

The quotation at the head of this chapter speaks of the press as "the assay office of literature;" and we assume, from the source of the remark, that the assaying is to be performed by the action, interaction, and reaction of the whole press upon its parts, and that the whole includes, here, not only the newspaper or the pamphlet, but also the reviews and the books, as well as the official utterings of public men in explanation of their conduct. We see at once that the performance of the function is impossible without freedom to all engaged in it; but we perceive also, that it is dangerous without the restraint of law. "Assaying" means the ascertainment of the intrinsic value, and the excerption of the dross from the pure metal; it includes also, as for instance in money, some official mark in aid of those, who have not the means of doing this for themselves. And the question is: whether this is now performed at all; and if we answer, as we must, to be truthful, that it is to some extent, the issue arises: whether it is done sufficient for public safety?

In considering this, we must bear in mind that the main em

ployment of the better press has been for the last three centuries, and is mainly still, to bring out the intrinsic merits of ancient literature, and to cast off the dross. That it could do that well, the editors and writers had to be without personal interest to mislead themselves and others. The whole matter changes when the assaying is to be done upon their own and contemporary work; then it is "power in action" that is to play the critic on "power in possession." And the judgment is then unfree and warped by prejudice, by self-interest, and by personal likes and dislikes. This is peculiarly important in a republic, where the formation of the public will is almost exclusively subject to editorial good or ill will. To reduce the danger that lurks selfevidently in this condition of things to a minimum, is therefore the great public task; and while we heartily subscribe to the motto, "Error of opinion may be tolerated when reason is left free to combat it," we nevertheless think, that freedom here means more than mere enfranchisement from authoritative interference; that it requires before all the "assaying" that lies in self-purifying and self-elevating processes. These are so few in the United States and its press; because in our society, to amount to anything, persons must, however great their genius and attainments may be, also have riches. In Europe it is the other way; there, to be esteemed, even the rich, must have cultivated minds.

We say, then, in conclusion: Leave individual enterprize as free as possible--that is to say, make the fewest possible prohibitions as to what shall not be published; confine punishments to crimes and immoralities actually committed, or by clear evidence about to be perpetrated; apply, in fact, to the press no more and no less than the jurisprudence that prevails as to all other individual criminal or immoral conduct and intent. Watch carefully and impartially whether the press, in the hands of individuals, is doing its own assaying, and leave it alone if it does! But fail not to supply deficiencies by the criterion that its work shall be beneficial to all. The same principle that justifies the construction of public roads, the erection of public schools, the preparation of public reports, the daily weather reports, applies to the press. It is in reality acted upon, when our legislative bodies appoint commissions and experts to investigate a given subject and to report the truth, scientifically and impartially ascertained. The reports of our consuls from abroad, the bulletins of foreign and domestic markets, the telegrams of the associated press, the circular letters of great broker and banking firms, all these and numerous other modes and methods, all have one object, viz: to place society, as the French say, au

fait on the subjects vital to their private and public conduct. Extend these, perfect them, use public officers for getting them up; supply society with some gratis, others at cost, and others for a small profit. In brief, do everything that shall relieve the Republic of those most abject as well as most dangerous individuals, that form their opinions by reading their party press and then vote a party ticket.

We know that the popular current is all running in the other direction; that the press is now regarded as unfree, just to the extent to which Government prints anything or assists in preparing matter for printing; but what do we care for popular currents? We do not want to swim with them; on the contrary, we mean to counteract them; and this chapter was written, not to humor them, but to point in the direction which we deem right. We have followed all the various vocations connected with the press; have helped to start a paper, have labored hard in giving it life and keeping it healthy; have been editor, contributor, correspondent, writer of public reports, and even of books; have officially voted on and discussed public printing in all its bearings, and think we know, what should and what should not be done in the premises. We hope we were qualified to advise as to the future of the press.

CHAPTER XII.

THE BALLOT-BOX.

"A real statesman's work is to secure a majority to his views, and not to follow those of a majority."-Virchow.

THICKLY strewn around us lie the evidences, that governing by the ballot-box, based on universal suffrage and universal qualification for office, is a failure; but why this is so, and what remedy we should apply, is not so intelligible. Some suggest that the elective franchise should be conferred for wealth; others, that education alone should qualify, even those who would extend it to women are not wanting. But we think the evils will be reduced to a minimum if we will only get clear of our overestimation of the value of the ballot-box; for we can stand universal but not chaotic suffrage. We mistook its arbitrary rule over society for self-government, and believed, that allowing men to vote their friendships and enmities, was not only a patent way to choose public officers, but also, to secure an efficient administration of public affairs. But it came otherwise: we got either too much or too little government, and both at the wrong time and always bad; for popular men are seldom, if ever, efficient administrators, or politicians in the true sense. How, then, could good government proceed from a ballot-box filled with tickets with men's names on it that were voted for either from personal or partisan motives? They expressed nothing but personal preferences or political fictions! Had we but paid attention to the fact, that the more people voted, the more frequent the elections and the more names there were on the tickets, the less law and order and liberty there was, and we might have seen, that we were all on the wrong tack; for no government that creates a necessity for more government is good government. Not paying attention to this, we overlooked, that this necessity was ever growing among us, and voted and voted, but raised nothing but bubbles by popular fermentation. The origin of all our misconceptions was: the assumption,

that whatever was wrong in European governments had its source in the absence of popular elections. And under this impression, all those, who pointed out to our age that many former governments declined and fell because too much subject to popular control, were treated as traitors to this "New World" of ours. They were told, that historic lessons were of but little value in comparison with the new lights which modern, socalled philanthropists, evolved.

But lo and behold! events run for awhile with this false prognosis! Every step towards more popularized public authority was accompanied by an improvement of society, and it then seemed reasonable that the acme of good government would be reached when it should be popular altogether. The presumption, that popular instincts were superior guides to historic experiences and statesmanship, carried with it the other, that all prescribed qualifications for office, such as age, property, and education, were relics of the dark ages. It was held, that, with a free press for discussion, mass meetings for ascertaining the public will, and party conventions for expressing and carrying it out, we had the ne plus ultra of ideal democracy. And so the ball was set in motion; its own elasticity, and the springy condition of society, gave it a new impetus at every bound, and it never stopped until it reached the dead level of per capita equality in voting and holding office. And now the people, having purged Government, as they thought, of all royal and aristocratic prerogatives, began to look at themselves in the mirror lit up by the aurora of the new morning, and saw a dim image of authority in a vapory political atmosphere.

Then the perception began to dawn upon them, that in up-turning so much old authority they had left no foundation for the new, and that now the great task was before them, to find a reliable basis and fundamental reason for their democratical rule. And when they undertook this, and proceeded with it, they had to learn, that all they could do, was to reestablish old ways and means under new names, and that often they could not even do that. So it became obvious, to the wiser, that the ballot-box was far more a disorganizing than an establishing medium in politics; and the question was: how to govern its government? And it was supposed to be solved by separating society into two parties, that should check and control each other. But as that produced nothing but a running contest as to which could do most "ground and lofty tumbling," it led to intrigues, frauds, and fabricated majorities. Other suggestions followed, such as minority representation